jservuk wrote:Strongly disagree with public funds being used to promote a professional sport. If they did want to do this, why not push Basketball, Athletics and any other 2-3 sports that are way ahead of Rugby in terms of popularity? There is a tendency to think just because Rugby is a big sport in France (perhaps the biggest in some parts), that that gives Rugby a pan-european profile.

We're leaving so I don't care what they do with their funds tbh. But I can see a better case for putting money into sponsoring a European sports tournament for the people than financing chauffuer services to take thieving bureaucrats around Brussels.

All tangental anyway, point is people need to get behind Rugby Europe Championship. I'd like to see the 6N expanded but it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

jservuk wrote:Strongly disagree with public funds being used to promote a professional sport. If they did want to do this, why not push Basketball, Athletics and any other 2-3 sports that are way ahead of Rugby in terms of popularity? There is a tendency to think just because Rugby is a big sport in France (perhaps the biggest in some parts), that that gives Rugby a pan-european profile.

We're leaving so I don't care what they do with their funds tbh. But I can see a better case for putting money into sponsoring a European sports tournament for the people than financing chauffuer services to take thieving bureaucrats around Brussels.

In what way are bureaucrats in Brussels more theiving than bureaucrats in London, or anywhere else? The current European corruption scandals are the anti-EU French National Front and the French equivalent of the Tory party headed by Monsieur Fillon (and the national government of Romania recently can be debated).

If you have any evidence of corruption in the European Parliament or European Commission then by all means approach the authorities. Otherwise let's leave lazy Daily Mail esque style allegations out of a rugby thread shall we?

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:In what way are bureaucrats in Brussels more theiving than bureaucrats in London, or anywhere else? The current European corruption scandals are the anti-EU French National Front and the French equivalent of the Tory party headed by Monsieur Fillon (and the national government of Romania recently can be debated).

If you have any evidence of corruption in the European Parliament or European Commission then by all means approach the authorities. Otherwise let's leave lazy Daily Mail esque style allegations out of a rugby thread shall we?

Don't tell me what to do goose, I'll post what I want to post. If you didn't want to talk about it you wouldn't reply to that part of my post but you couldn't help yourself and replied to the only non-rugby part. You didn't even include any rugby content in your own post yet have the nerve to tell me what to post. The whole EU bureaucracy is a protectionist scam and their accounts are a mess and it was they who were the subject of discussion so your whataboutery is inapplicable.

Sponsoring a European rugby tournament makes more sense than this atypical self-serving theft of public money. At least the public would get something out of it. It might even inspire some positive press for the beleaguered Union, wouldn't that make a change. They'd sooner waste it on some other scheme to benefit themselves.

Senior MEPs will vote Wednesday on a plan to revamp the chauffeur service, hiring 110 full-time drivers and adding more than €3 million a year to its existing €7 million annual transport costs.

According to financial documents obtained by POLITICO, the Parliament currently spends €6.8 million a year on transportation services for members. The planned changes would add €3.7 million to that tab, bringing the cost to €10.5 million per year.

Alright, lets just chill a little. I think the main issue is any legal action attempted is going to run into trouble trying to prove the 6N are actively preventing the development of rugby in Europe. We know this is patently false as much as we'd like to think otherwise. The 6N choosing not to help is not the same as them trying to suffocate growth on the continent.

"I would ask John Feehan to visit Georgia, but it's not just check the box, they have to think about it seriously. Bill Beaumount also would support it, perhaps I will not be here within three years, but I will continue pushing ", added Pichot.

"I don't know how they created their own entity without any attachment to World Rugby. There should be more joint work to care for the global game. There are more than 10 teams in the world: is not just the Six Nations and Rugby Championship. No, it's not okay".

I personally have no problem Pichot pushing for further expansion that’s his job but do your homework before making offhand comments.

PS: Lets Keep political arguments out of this Forum, I agree about public funding to community or Amateur Sports level clubs as I have been involved in several projects. I don't agree taxpayers money going to Professional or Semi-Professional sports teams that want to be fully fledged,

The 6 nations should have to apply for world rugby sanctioning as they are a tournament with only regional nations, but they don't because they hold the cards and it's ridiculous. That is the point Pichot is making.

The 6 nations (miuns France and Italy) have never respected the global game that's a fact, they wouldn't care if the world cup never came to fruition as long as they have the 6 nations and lions tour.

A clear example of t1 preventing growth directly through hoarding funding is The money World Rugby has to hand out to t1 for their loss of 'revenue' during world cup years. They get about 50 times the amount that's given to t2/t3 participants. That should be going towards regional championships.

Pichot is doing the exact same thing he did in terms of getting Argentina in the RC and getting the ARC off the ground, and that's good for the game, we need someone near the top of the board making these statements. 'No, it's not Ok' - that's a pretty powerful statement . I am curious to know what would happen if Pichot was to get the top job, there's never been a WR/IRB Chairman that's had really progressive views like what Pichot has. I do agree that both the RC and 6N should be sanctioned by WR.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Alright, lets just chill a little. I think the main issue is any legal action attempted is going to run into trouble trying to prove the 6N are actively preventing the development of rugby in Europe. We know this is patently false as much as we'd like to think otherwise. The 6N choosing not to help is not the same as them trying to suffocate growth on the continent.

Actually you don't have to prove that they are deliberately doing it, monopolies are often not deliberately suffocating to a market but must still actively NOT freeze others out.

to quote directly they have "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".

Really I share everyone's doubts about whether it would succeed in court but a credible case to threaten them with can be built up. Alongside a media and PR operation the 6N may well rather settle for something like a promotion & relegation play off rather than risk a case that could, even if very unlikely, bring down the whole house of cards.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Pichot is doing the exact same thing he did in terms of getting Argentina in the RC and getting the ARC off the ground, and that's good for the game, we need someone near the top of the board making these statements. 'No, it's not Ok' - that's a pretty powerful statement . I am curious to know what would happen if Pichot was to get the top job, there's never been a WR/IRB Chairman that's had really progressive views like what Pichot has. I do agree that both the RC and 6N should be sanctioned by WR.

Not really for this thread...but when it comes to being progressive. The IRB is charging USAR and additional 400k for having an integrated 7s RWC with the men and women playing on alternating days. IRB wanted the women in a separate tournament and not connected to the men's game. Well USAR said no, you awarded us the bid and we're going to do this it is going to be legit. What a bunch of backwards schmucks.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Pichot is doing the exact same thing he did in terms of getting Argentina in the RC and getting the ARC off the ground, and that's good for the game, we need someone near the top of the board making these statements. 'No, it's not Ok' - that's a pretty powerful statement . I am curious to know what would happen if Pichot was to get the top job, there's never been a WR/IRB Chairman that's had really progressive views like what Pichot has. I do agree that both the RC and 6N should be sanctioned by WR.

Strong arm the home nation unions and mandate that cross border club games in Europe do not have to be sanctioned by national unions and instead directly through Rugby Europe/regional feds and world Rugby until they come under world rugby sanctioning. If the 6 nations think they don't have to go through the loops then why should the clubs. That would scare the shit out of them.

technically the Six Nations is not a highest division of European Rugby Championships - it's just a fun festival tournament same as Viking Tri Nations - the only diference is that VTN participants did not opt out of participation in the official Rugby Europe International Championships

so if someone wants to challenge Six Nations Rugby Ltd in court then Rugby Europe should change its regulations so that every RE member must participate in REIC

Well, someone can argue that since France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy DON'T play the RE Championships AND together share more market than all the rest of the continent it is a cartel indeed, as cartels never put a banner in front of them saying "welcome to our cartel". The question is who would afford the political onus of doing such a legal action?

On the other hand as RE I would simply state that members nations who are not taking part in a RE championships with one or more teams starting U16 up to adult level are not allowed to take part in other competitions, i.e. the Olympic 7s qualifier, the RE 7s Grand Prix or a Rugby world cup qualifier.

Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, 12:16, edited 2 times in total.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

sk 88 wrote:Actually you don't have to prove that they are deliberately doing it, monopolies are often not deliberately suffocating to a market but must still actively NOT freeze others out.

to quote directly they have "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".

Really I share everyone's doubts about whether it would succeed in court but a credible case to threaten them with can be built up. Alongside a media and PR operation the 6N may well rather settle for something like a promotion & relegation play off rather than risk a case that could, even if very unlikely, bring down the whole house of cards.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer but I can't imagine there's much of an argument that says the 6N are a monopoly when you have the REC also taking place at the same time.

amz wrote:First link is broken, could you please remove the emoticon? I think that's the reason for which it doesn't work. Thanks!

repaired it. Link is about some ice-skaters suing the World ice-skating federation for not allowing them to take part in a specific race under EU law.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

sk 88 wrote:Actually you don't have to prove that they are deliberately doing it, monopolies are often not deliberately suffocating to a market but must still actively NOT freeze others out.

to quote directly they have "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".

Really I share everyone's doubts about whether it would succeed in court but a credible case to threaten them with can be built up. Alongside a media and PR operation the 6N may well rather settle for something like a promotion & relegation play off rather than risk a case that could, even if very unlikely, bring down the whole house of cards.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer but I can't imagine there's much of an argument that says the 6N are a monopoly when you have the REC also taking place at the same time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21684329Microsoft got fined because they only put Internet Explorer as a default in Windows instead of a bunch of others as well. Were they blocking other browsers?... no, users could install them, but they still got fined because their actions meant they got too much of an advantage on the market. The same argument could be applied for the 6Ns as well IMO. They're not stopping anyone else from playing other tournaments, but by locking them out of the dominant tournament they are giving themselves too much of an advantage.

I have no clue is such a case would be winnable or not, but IMO it would still be worth it. It might scare the 6Ns into opening up and it could provide negative press for the 6N for years, which might also convince them it's time to change things.

the comparison doesn't work because there's nothing stopping the REC from generating the same type of money and media attention if they put the effort in. Even if that Microsoft ruling is ridiculous you can make the argument there was no incentive for anyone to switch browsers. Court action will do nothing more than make the 6N unions break away from World Rugby and set up a rival international rugby board. It's not going to work one way or the other.

thatrugbyguy wrote:the comparison doesn't work because there's nothing stopping the REC from generating the same type of money and media attention if they put the effort in. Even if that Microsoft ruling is ridiculous you can make the argument there was no incentive for anyone to switch browsers. Court action will do nothing more than make the 6N unions break away from World Rugby and set up a rival international rugby board. It's not going to work one way or the other.

Yeah, thatrugbyguy, I think you are right on this one. We cannot force teams down the 6N throats. Both sides of the coin have to come to a consensus about expanding the 6N. Personally, Georgia deserve to be in by all means. Their level of XVs rugby is pretty good, but at the same time, if people don't want you to join their club, then that's it. You can't force your way, Life is unfair. Just create a strong REC to compete with the 6N, until they re- consider.

Pichot is on the right track but i would have chosen my words differently for starters try to woo 6N since they are the oldest competition and make a point of aligning with REC. Both need each other this argument about having rival competitions etc.. will never work particularly with the TV rights coming up for renewal.

Good Negotiation is what is needed, not threat that WR is the be all and end all is not good for the sport particularly when they hold the purse strings. Also you cannot compare the original Tri-nations now Rugby Championship with 6N two completely different beasts and histories.

Expanding the Six Nations is all about politics.The six federations have all the power, so they can ignore World Rugby as much as they want.If World Rugby wants more teams, they must negotiate with the six federations.And they won't accept relegation. That's why I think that they should push for expansion.

One senior Italian source argued forcibly that Italy needs two professional teams to have any chance of competing in the Six Nations, and so they do, but perhaps the long-term goal is to replace Italy with the USA Eagles in the Six Nations.

One senior Italian source argued forcibly that Italy needs two professional teams to have any chance of competing in the Six Nations, and so they do, but perhaps the long-term goal is to replace Italy with the USA Eagles in the Six Nations.

The Scotsman is very close to and uncritical of the SRU and Pro12. I suspect they may have been asked to put this information into the public domain as a negotiating tool against the Italians to try and get Italy to pay for continued involvement in the Pro12.

There can be no prospect of the US leapfrogging Georgia and Romania and replacing Italy surely.